Horologium (talk | contribs) →Section break: delete, but allow recreation with full protection. |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
====Section break==== |
====Section break==== |
||
*'''Сomment''' [[Mister Rogers' Neighborhood|Mr. Roger]]'s acronym for today is [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|Coatrack]], pronounced, Coa-track, Coatrack is an essay (not a policy or guideline), which is irrelevent to [[Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ]] but a lot of "deletionist" seemed to have embraced anyway in the latest failed AfD.[[User:Travb|Inclusionist]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Сomment''' [[Mister Rogers' Neighborhood|Mr. Roger]]'s acronym for today is [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|Coatrack]], pronounced, Coa-track, Coatrack is an essay (not a policy or guideline), which is irrelevent to [[Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ]] but a lot of "deletionist" seemed to have embraced anyway in the latest failed AfD.[[User:Travb|Inclusionist]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Speedy Keep''' I'm surprised this this is still up: it's an obvious speedy keep and a POV, bad faith Afd (either that or they really are ignorant of WP policy). Either way, its noteworthy that none of the arguments to delete hold up. They are either 100% false, as has been shown, or they are not based on policy. It's also relevant to note, as others have pointed out, the same editors who are want to delete it, do so after getting getting rid of the the articles best sources, purging it of its value (to make it look less notable and less referenced?)--all in the name of "fixing the article"--while here they show they don't want to fix it, they want it gone. Seems like they want it both ways. As BernardL, above, points just some of the impeccable sources that were deleted, all making explicit claims supporting the subject matter. I understand nationalism and jingoism but WP is not censored, so this is not a place to allow such emotive feelings to get the better of us. We report factually encyclopedic knowledge that elucidates, educations, and expands our horizons. Those who find this incompatible with their faith system (faith that the US has not engaged in state terrorism repeatedly) should simply not edit here. WP policies and rules are paramount. |
|||
This delete attempt like the many others before are raise serious issues: Will WP be censored or be a real place of learning? Instead of arguing with these editor about deleting, we should be instead talking about promoting this article to Featured Status. We were getting close to that before they came in to disrupt it again. We have some of the best sources possible, mostly academic journal from top professors in their field, as BernardL, has shown. |
|||
*Let me give some examples of deleted material, on the false claims that they are either not good sources or they are not related to State Terrorism. Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,' writs that, 'Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror...” The region has been one of the focal points of the literature on state terrorism. Sluka states that “at the end of the 1970’s, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of the existence of a new global “epidemic” of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. “sphere of influence,” and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the United States client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 8). Likewise, the contributions of Michael McClintock, former senior researcher at Amnesty International, have been cited as among the pioneering works about state terrorism in Latin America. (McSherry, Patrice J. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 15-17). McClintock is notable for making the connection between state terrorist practice in Guatemala with previous practices by counterinsurgency forces in Vietnam and the Philippines. Various analysts have charged that the U.S. is significantly complicit in terror regimes in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, and Colombia, citing mainstream human rights organizations such as AI material and Human Rights Watch that these scholars analyze as descriptions of politically motivated campaigns of violence and terror by the powerful over the poor. They either assign major complicity if not outright blame directly on US policies. Is this material relevant and topical, is it notable? This is without question that case, despite those who want to see this forever buried along with its many victims. |
|||
Whole sections are wiped out. Never mind that we have top sources that say, for example that the US atomic bombings of Japan represent the single greatest act of state terrorism in the [[20th century]].<ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| last = Frey |
|||
| first =Robert S. |
|||
| title = The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond |
|||
| publisher =University Press of America |
|||
| date =2004 |
|||
| id = ISBN 0761827439 }} Reviewed at: |
|||
{{cite journal |
|||
| last = Rice |
|||
| first =Sarah |
|||
| title =The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review) |
|||
| journal =Harvard Human Rights Journal |
|||
| volume =Vol. 18 |
|||
| date =2005 |
|||
| url = http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Genocidal.shtml |
|||
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite journal |
|||
| last = Dower |
|||
| first =John |
|||
| title =The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory |
|||
| journal =Diplomatic History |
|||
| volume =Vol. 19 |
|||
| issue =no. 2 |
|||
| date =1995 |
|||
| url = |
|||
| accessdate = }}</ref> |
|||
If we disagree that is fine, but its not relevant. What is relevant is that we have many top scholars who make this argument. Yet, they deleted entire sections that were very well referenced, balanced, notable, and on topic on the basis that they don't personally agree with what is being said. I do not exaggerate this point. So now they want to delete the article and change the subject because they don't personally agree with it. Again, nice to know, but its not policy. It has no basis on WP editing protocol. |
|||
Historian [[Howard Zinn]] writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."<ref name="ZinnBreakingSilence" /> Is this a valid source, topical, relevant, and notable? Sure but its deleted. |
|||
[[Michael Walzer]] wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."<ref>{{cite journal |
|||
| author = Walzer, Michael |
|||
| name = Dissent Magazine |
|||
| title = Five Questions About Terrorism |
|||
| publisher = Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. |
|||
| date = 2002 |
|||
| url = http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/LpB/Lehre/WS%2002-03/Walzer%20on%20Terror.pdf |
|||
| volume = 49 |
|||
| issue = 1 |
|||
| accessdate=2007-07-11}}</ref> Deleted. |
|||
Professor [[C.A.J. (Tony) Coady]] is head of the [[Australian Research Council]] [[Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)]] and studies political violence, [[Just War Theory]], [[Terrorism]], and [[Humanitarian intervention]].<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.cappe.edu.au/staff/tony-coady.htm |title=Professor Tony Coady |accessdate=2008-01-30 }}</ref> He writes in ''Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World'': "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."<ref>{{cite book|title = Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World |publisher = Melbourne University Publishing |year = 2004 |month = June |last = Coady |first = Tony |ISBN = 0-52285049-9 |pages = XV}}</ref> Another impeccable source. But since the POV editors don't personally agree with these professors, they delete them. |
|||
Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at [[Binghamton University]] and author of ''War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century'', writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."<ref>{{cite news | first=Mark | last=Selden | coauthors= | title=Terrorism Before and After 9-11 | date=[[2002-09-09]] | publisher=[[Znet]] | url =http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-01-30 | language = }}</ref> Guess what? Deleted. |
|||
[[Richard A. Falk]], professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at [[Princeton University]] has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of [[state terrorism]]. He writes "The graveyards of [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays [[Qaddafi]] as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."<ref name="falk" />. He also writes: |
|||
{{quote|Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.|Richard Falk|''War and State Terrorism''<ref>Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45</ref>}} Deleted. |
|||
I could go on, but you get the point. There was balancing material added, of course, it was trimmed down, as requested, and added with consensus. So what happens? They come back and this time delete it because they say its too small. They delete other sections because they say its too big. Any baseless argument will do as long as this information is suppressed, censored. Well, this is not going to happen, not in wikipedia. I think they must have confused this place with Conservopedia. In this place we have standard and respect knowledge. This place is trying to be a real encylopedia that is not afraid to engage in subjects that are uncomfortable, or controversial--we report and document all notable knowledge about the world around us. That is what an encylopedia is all about. At least any good one. That is what is at stake here: Is WP to be, to be a US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade, where criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims? No. I prefer we be a genuine encyclopedia, and this article is in its best tradition. That is why I think it also matters that editors working on it should have an extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject under their belt. The fact that many don't explains a lot about the continued bickering. If they would just do a little more studying on the topic, we'd be a lot better off. In the mean while its clearly a '''KEEP KEEP KEEP'''.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:33, 17 April 2008
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
[Note: I've just moved the page to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States per the talk page; it doesn't affect my vote William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)]
- Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article has been nominated for deletion many times and I do know that. I also know the subject is possibly notable. But looking at the lead sentence alone, I can see POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera. This is also a potential embarassment to Wikipedia because it's been tagged as such since mid-last year, and the problems go back way beyond that, possibly to the point of the article's conception. I can safely say that people aren't fixing it, they're just making noise on the talk page. In short, this is the textbook example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and our credibility may increase as a result of it. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Previous AFDs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American terrorism
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on balance. There is undoubtedly evidence that the US has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, but we have proven that we are completely unable to document it in isolation without violating every single policy we have. Repeatedly. And then violating them all again. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any POV problem is editing, the topic is notable, it is valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is valid if WP:NPOV and WP:V is respected. Clearly there are problems and have been for a long time now but we do not solve these problems by declaring defeat - and that is exactly what this nom is doing. If this is deleted it will most likely be recreated shortly anyway - most likely under a new title too. A better approach here is to show those who disrupt the article the door with less discussion and more liberal use of the block button. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is notable and has number of RS sources to back it up, just because few people are unable to clean it up per NPOV is no reason for Deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The massive COATRACK issues, the continual edit warring, and the rampant soapboxing aren't in and of themselves reasons to delete an article, irritating as they are. However, a large majority of the sources fail WP:V due to their extremist and fringe nature. Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky, despite their supporters' fervent desire, are not representative of mainstream thought on the topic. Skinwalker (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, notable subject with reliable sources. The current poor state of the article is not grounds for deletion but the result of poor editing practices such as edit-warring instead of constructive debate and compromise. Were this to be enforced, I could easily imagine the article becoming rather a good one. --John (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I urge all of you voting to keep to look at WP:HOPELESS: "If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrasment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article. Things which cause concerns over core policies like verifiability need to be addressed, and simply saying that major concerns of that nature could be solved eventually, is not going to solve the problem." definitely applies to this article. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If Yasser Arafat can be brought to Feature Article status, NOTHING is HOPELESS. You severly underestimate the powers of your fellow Wikipedians.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment First of all you are quoting that out of context. Second, you are using something that isn't even a guideline. Third, why is this article not on probation? If I didn't know better I would stub this article myself but there is a valid topic here and deleting it will only result in recreation. I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised but we do not solve these problems by deleting the article. With due respect I think that is a naive approach to dealing with the article at not least those who are disrupting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- How am I misquoting it? I listed the exception to the "surmountable problem" argument to avoid. Besides, "why bother?" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article (see "better here than there") Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because there is a valid article to be had if stubbed and reworked from there. Thus the exception you are quoting does not apply. If stubbed is there an actual policy or even guideline that would be violated? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, I know the sentences you quoted from WP:HOPELESS very well. I was the one who wrote them. I cannot claim to own the only valid interpretation of what I wrote, but I can say that I did not write it to encourage the deletion of articles with long-lasting problems regarding NPOV, because even an article which is contentious has information which is valuable to the reader. Articles which are an "embarrassment" to Wikipedia are things like hoaxes on otherwise valid and notable topics, articles which are just spam and don't even try to be neutral, and articles which do nothing to describe the subject suggested in the title. If several editors have worked, argued and discussed in order to provide encyclopedic coverage on a contentious topic, then that is not a "hopeless" or "embarrassing" cause. On the contrary, I would call that Wikipedia at it's best, attempting at least, to provide neutral coverage on an issue which many people have very strong and convicted opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because there is a valid article to be had if stubbed and reworked from there. Thus the exception you are quoting does not apply. If stubbed is there an actual policy or even guideline that would be violated? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- How am I misquoting it? I listed the exception to the "surmountable problem" argument to avoid. Besides, "why bother?" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article (see "better here than there") Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- speedy keep none of the reasons stated by the nom "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. The topic is WP:N with numerous WP:RS. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would appear the consensus regarding this article disagrees with you, or the tags on it would have been gone a long time ago. Jtrainor (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jtrainor, how ridiculous, everyone always argues that their side has "consensus", it is the most abused word on wikipedia. Personally, I find that people usually point out consensus when there is none.
- If this article is so againt "consensus", why has it survived 7 AfDs? Why have there been so many editors who have fought against the large scale deletion vandalism? I think the tag simply shows that there is no consensus, and that the editors who have been fighting this vandalism are more tolerant of different views than editors on other pages. Try adding a "POV tag" on the September 11th page, it will be removed by those editors in less than an hour. Trav (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- keep per TheRedPenOfDoom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think that the article could theoretically be improved, but on balance it may simply be better if it were deleted and other articles expanded. As Guy says, there has been so much edit-warring over it that if it is ever to be improved it will involve a lot of people being banned/heavily restricted in their editing. Some people may like the idea of that, but I think that would be a shame. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable by the numerous sources to be had. All of the things that are listed by the nominator are things that can be fixed and repaired through normal editing. Controversy surrounding a subject is not a good reason to delete an article, nor is controversy surrounding the article itself. Regarding the comment above me, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. We're supposed to be objective here, and if you can't be, then don't edit difficult articles. Celarnor Talk to me 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about others, not myself. John Smith's (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice against recreation. While the subject is notable, we could do much better by simply nuking it and starting again. While I am usually the first to claim any article is better than non at all, in some cases the issues outweigh the benefits. Since we can most-likely assume that it will be recreated, then I see no reason not to start over, as I don't think it could end up much worse than this. Random89 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The article is sourced and describe real facts. I suppose that this article has been tagged for deletion due to politcal reasons.User:Lucifero4
- WP:AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- delete. Notable subject, appalling article. Its just a list of areas, most (all?) of which are covered elsewhere. It makes no attempt to integrate these disparate threads together, which would be the justification for its existence William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I share the frustration of those who feel that the article, in its current form, is in a shambles. However, this article has survived a total of seven prior AfD attempts, and has a substantial history of turmoil. Deletion is a drastic step, tantamount to asserting that there is no salvageable version anywhere in the history of the article, and thus in effect overturning the collective weight of all previous AfDs. Given the fact that the article is currently not in a "stable" state (over half of it was deleted recently, restored, deleted, restored...), I suggest that this AfD be postponed until heads are cooler, and responses are more tempered. silly rabbit (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Awful, unsalvageable article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad as it stands. Several useful references in there, though, that address this topic specifically. I don't think that we can or should delete it given those circs. Don't see what this nomination is doing. Sceptre, please stop nomming things for deletion that you know are going to receive lots of keep support unless you have a novel argument to make. If you really want our credibility to increase, go delete real SYNTH articles like Denial of the Holodomor, not something that has half a dozen bloody academic seminars a year devoted to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being and fix if possible. The title is POV even with "allegations" added and grammatically wrong (the allegations are about the USA not by the USA, an allegation of state terrorism by the USA would be the USA saying about some other countries actions "that's state terrorism"). I think this is a case of an article which hasn't clearly stated what its topic is. Perhaps "Allegations that the USA has broken international law" is a better topic. Also consider merge to other topics.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- What? "by the United States" is modifying "state terrorism", not "allegations." 70.227.26.127 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:COATRACK X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I took this off my watchlist because I was sick of dealing with it, and the article I see now bears little resemblance to the one I saw a couple of months ago. I don't know if that's good or bad, but the deletions seem excessive. This is an extremely notable topic and that's what is at issue here. The problem with this article is that over the years it has been worked on largely by two groups of people: 1) People who love it, and want to include every possible accusation, sometimes even if it goes against NPOV; 2) People who hate it and want it deleted and spend most of their time putting it up for AfD, deleting massive sections, or adding irrelevant material for balance. The former group was largely owning the article a few months ago, now the latter seems to be moving in. Unsurprisingly the result of all of this has not been a good article (though it's not, or wasn't, nearly as bad as some are making it). However deleting it is clearly the wrong way to go. The topic is notable and quite frankly deleting it makes us look a little bit ridiculous if we do so. I can't help but notice that no one has put Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, or Allegations of state terrorism by Iran up for deletion (all of which are linked to at the bottom of this page). I find that very revealing, and an outside observer might wonder why we can have those articles but not this one, why this has been put up for AfD and those have not. Basically the answer is that this article creates a lot of drama because more folks on en.wikipedia have strong feelings about US foreign policy than the foreign policy of Russia or Sri Lanka. But that's a terrible rationale, and to delete this and keep the others (perhaps someone will put them up for AfD now, though I don't see a basis for that) is, I think, to violate our core policy on NPOV. This project has its base of operation in the US and is very heavily "staffed" by American volunteers. Sceptre thinks the article in its current state makes Wikipedia look a bit ridiculous (and I don't necessarily disagree with that), but we look far more ridiculous by deleting an article critical of US foreign policy because the lot of us can't figure out a way to edit it properly. My keep rationale is per WP:N, but I hope the other component of my argument will be considered.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that you talk about the "allegations.. sri lanka" article. As the one who moved it to its present title from a ridiculous "State terr by/in SL" or something, let me tell you that that article has been at the center of vehement disputes too. I am not sure but I think it has also been put up for deletion once or twice.. or has come pretty close. Also, the reason this article is AfD-ed more often is not because this is a more high profile target or anything, but simply because there's several orders of magnitude more people editing American articles(not just this one) compared to those editing SLankan articles. We could probably count the number of active editors on the Sri Lankan project on two hands. The problem with these articles is that there simply is no way in the wiki process to ensure that it will read even remotely balanced. And we keep proclaiming that NOR, NPOV etc are non-negotiable. UCS-->delete is the way to go. it is WP:NOTABLE .. so keep it smacks of BURO. Sarvagnya 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're basically making the same point that I am but coming to a different conclusion. I'm arguing that it's precisely because there are far more folks editing articles on this and other American topics that this article has been especially controversial and thus put up for AfD time and time again. Few are arguing here that the subject is not notable (which usually would be how we decide a matter like this), rather they are saying the article is a pain and we can't maintain it properly. That fact is a function of the fact that there are a ton of American/interested-in-American-topics editors on this site and that this particular topic is extremely politically contentious. By following the "this article is more trouble than it's worth" delete rationale we end up deleting an article critical of American foreign policy (because we argue too much about it which decreases the article quality) while keeping identical articles on two countries with whom the United States has significant disputes, namely Iran and Russia. I think that is a significant NPOV problem, and it's instructive to consider how a Russian or an Iranian would feel about all of this. As to your last comment, if I read you right you seem to be saying that even though the topic is notable, a desire to keep it is a form of rules-lawyering (WP:BURO). Simply because the notability guidelines support the keep side and not the delete side does not mean that the former's invocation of said guidelines is a form of instruction creep. If the topic was not notable delete commenters would clearly be mentioning that (as many did in previous AfD's), however it is so they are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - If it cant be deleted, it should be hacked down and reduced to a stub. Barring WP:NOTE, articles like this fly in the face of every known policy and guideline. Sarvagnya 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. The article is being fixed. There was a problem with the article name trying to make it cover opposite subjects. Well it cannot. The article is not a debate but reference to facts. It must stay on topic as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States I support the move by William M. Connolley. Igor Berger (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. Yahel Guhan 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel it biased and POV but it is not. There are many articles that deal with controversial issues, should we be deleting all of them? Should we delete abortion, fascism, anti-semitism, anti-americanism, waterboarding, psuedoscience, there are more. We are not censored! Igor Berger (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with the new name (move the talk page too, please, Dr. admin -- why would an admin not move the whole thing?) The topic is notable. The correct way to fix an article on a notable topic is not to delete the article, it is to improve it. Listing Port (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
strong speedy keep As the other editor said: "none of the reasons stated by the nom (which are mostly not true either) "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. This is yet another bad faith nomination to try to censor WP of information that they don't like others to know about. Clearly a POV motivated attack by conservatives, again. The fact is that the topic is very notable per WP:N and is loaded with numerous reliable sources per WP:RS. This is a no brainer a speedy keep that says a lot more about those who want to delete it than it does about this article. I also note that they have vandalized the article by removing lots of soured material right before this nom. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)- Please note that this use has been identified as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33 and banned accordingly - this may require a check when this AfD is concluded. John Smith's (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppet; not proven, and therefore not guilty. And even if that were true (which I doubt), it doesn't effect the strength of argument or its validity. — Becksguy (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iraq. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lebanon. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/El Salvador. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed all these previous irrelevant "additions" Yahel Guhan 05:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have added some of them because these countries are associated with allegation of US State terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral-It looks sourced but the sources are not online so it's hard to verify. Depending on the quality of the sources that are not online, it could be a WP:SYNTH or it could turn out to be a WP:FA. I recommend that the sources get verified before deletion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Section break
- Delete This article, as stated, has had problems since it's creation, including a cabal of editors with severe WP:OWN issues who edit war and use sockpuppets to ensure that the article reflects a specific POV, instead of following NPOV. It consists of scads and scads of poorly sourced material and duplicates things in many other articles, in some cases, having individual sections even longer than actual articles on the subject. I also note the consistent accusations of bad faith noms in virtually every AfD this article has been through, without a flick of evidence, often from the very same editors that edit war so frequently on this article. I urge all admins to keep strict control of this AfD and not let these spurious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to go unchallenged. Jtrainor (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment I encourage admins reading this AfD to read [[1]] and remove spurious puppet votes accordingly. Jtrainor (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, we have it for other countries. POV does not mean something should be deleted, it means verified and cleaned-up. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - On balance, better to have it, then not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the new name seems to sort out a lot of problems. To delete it when articles on other countries exist will look like censorship. There seem to be enough people here with strong views to ensure a balanced article so I can't see why the "poorly sourced" and OR sections have not been removed. Sophia 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Its sourced and highly informative, but it clearly needs to be protected(temporarily) and more discussion needs to take place to try and get it into a relatively stable condition. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why risk the appearance of censorship? I don't see any problems that can't be addressed by following WP guidelines and policy. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a notable topic (now that it's been renamed, at least). POV will obviously be a problem in an article like this, but that's an argument for more diligent editing, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article (and it's talk page especially) should be classified as being of historical interest and never be deleted. I doubt there is anywhere on internet where people have bickered and reverted each other back and forth with so much futility and puerility. Also if this article were to be deleted the people who like arguing like this all day would not disappear. They would just move on to other articles , possibly ones which are of actual utility, rather than this disjointed collection of true but unrelated accusations. As for giving wikipedia a bad name I'm more worried about all the vanity and Pokemon articles that are springing up all over the place. Jackaranga (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - if we deleted every article we had conflicts over, Wikipedia would be a veritable block of swiss cheese. The solution is to crack down on problematic editing, not to delete. krimpet✽ 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kill The article and start over. Keep the old version for he historical record, and start over with a clean and mostly NPOV version. 192.77.125.21 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete State terrorism has no agreed on definition. It is not an international legal term unlike terrorism by non-state actors. As such it is just a perjorative term used by certain sensationalist writers. The term lacks content besides being inflammatory. Could as well have an article called Very bad things done by the United States.
- Also, the article has been a dumping ground for all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism. Added by anonymous editors who personally are convinced that something is very bad=terrorism even if the source does not make any such claim. As such the article will always be a battleground. There are other articles for criticizing the United States on human rights, foreign policy, or more specific grounds. The article thus has no purpose.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if it came to Iran. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose any similarly named article for reasons given.Ultramarine (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThere are multiple definition that were most recently deleted from the article: [2] oddly enough by someone voting delete. You should be aware, you supported the deletion in this revert: [3] --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple possible claimed definitions. No agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "possible definitions." An official definition by the United States government, seems to be agreed upon by the United States government, which is at question. Further if the article is exploring or discussing a classification of events, the definition does not have to be exact to all instances. The definition of "war" depends on who is applying it, a government, a lay person, a lawyer, etc. Making this argument of there being no one universal definition agreed upon by all man, false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note I am talking about "state terrorism" not terrorism by non-state actors. Regarding non-state actors there is also no agreement but at least several international conventions. Although they use different definitions. The US also has several different internal definitions of terrorism by non-state actors in different laws and documents. Regarding state terrorism there are no legal definition at all. It does not exist as a legal concept in international laws.Ultramarine (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- States are regulated by laws regarding war crimes, human rights etc. To quote former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has stated that it "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument is a red herring, the article is not discussing a legal construct. As noted in my point above, much like the term "war", it is both a classification of conflicts, and to some degree a legal status of an event. Arguing something has no legal definition does not make it vanish. The fact that many writers, over 20+ cited in the article and quoted, use the term and apply their definitions, as well as the United States of America, there seems to be an existence and agreed upon notion of what State terrorism is. All which appear to circle around the notion of the "state" committing terrorism against a civilian populace. Please do not present any further red herrings. While it is a nice quote, it does not make "state terrorism" disappear from existence and further proves that your argument that a "legal definition" must exist to be false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- To add, your argument would actually be a valid reason, if accepted, to delete the article on state terrorism. Do you find that article to be in need of addition to this AfD? --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, "state terrorism" and terrorism by non-state actors are different things. The US certainly has no definition of "state terrorism". All people using the term "state terrorism" have invented their own personal definition of "state terrorism", usually very different if they bother to state any definition at all, and claims that something is this. As such it just a personal perjorative opinion. Equivalent to "very bad". Also, terrorism does not have to be against civilians. For example, one definition of terrorism states "Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" which includes certain military targets. So no agreement even on this. The state terrorism article describes the problems with the concept.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you name four definitions presented by non-online sources. You make an accusation and something tells me you are making it up, before I make an accusation however I will afford you the opportunity to tells us all four of those definitions in offline sources. For you to go one further and state that "state terrorism" is the equivalent of "very bad" is a pretty silly argument, what you are alleging is the United States government places entire countries on a list, blocks trade with them, enlists embargo's just because they are "very bad" with no clear definition or understanding of what they are saying. I think common sense in this case has defeated your argument. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, "state terrorism" and terrorism by non-state actors are different things. The US certainly has no definition of "state terrorism". All people using the term "state terrorism" have invented their own personal definition of "state terrorism", usually very different if they bother to state any definition at all, and claims that something is this. As such it just a personal perjorative opinion. Equivalent to "very bad". Also, terrorism does not have to be against civilians. For example, one definition of terrorism states "Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" which includes certain military targets. So no agreement even on this. The state terrorism article describes the problems with the concept.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- To add, your argument would actually be a valid reason, if accepted, to delete the article on state terrorism. Do you find that article to be in need of addition to this AfD? --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument is a red herring, the article is not discussing a legal construct. As noted in my point above, much like the term "war", it is both a classification of conflicts, and to some degree a legal status of an event. Arguing something has no legal definition does not make it vanish. The fact that many writers, over 20+ cited in the article and quoted, use the term and apply their definitions, as well as the United States of America, there seems to be an existence and agreed upon notion of what State terrorism is. All which appear to circle around the notion of the "state" committing terrorism against a civilian populace. Please do not present any further red herrings. While it is a nice quote, it does not make "state terrorism" disappear from existence and further proves that your argument that a "legal definition" must exist to be false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "possible definitions." An official definition by the United States government, seems to be agreed upon by the United States government, which is at question. Further if the article is exploring or discussing a classification of events, the definition does not have to be exact to all instances. The definition of "war" depends on who is applying it, a government, a lay person, a lawyer, etc. Making this argument of there being no one universal definition agreed upon by all man, false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Multiple possible claimed definitions. No agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- additional comment Ultramarine has previously (and frequently) made the statement "anonymous editors" "[dump] ... all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism" and has yet to show that this has even happened, much less that such unsourced items/vandalism have remained in the article for long. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- False. See [4]. Lots of quotes by for example Amnesty anjd Human Rights Watch not accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- - It seems this has been done to death already: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] When will people get the message that it is better to just work on fixing the article, instead of renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion. Oddly the people voting delete are the ones responsible for its recent name change and band wagon deletion nomination. It is almost humorous that JTrainer would allege there is a cabal protecting the article, when the only constant is the names of people supporting the deletion and renaming of the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're wrong about a lot; renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion for starters. Still, we look forward to you living up to your words and actually helping to fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great points and arguments, "your wrong" is always so persuasive. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if it came to Iran. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. POV allegations and article problems aside, is this topic notable enough for inclusion in our encyclopedia? Definitely. If there's no doubt about this, should its deletion be discussed here? Definitely not. Plrk (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Many of the editors who vote to delete have been guilty of vandalism, deleting large well referenced sections of the article which doesn't meet their own POV. I am frustrated at pretty must every editor in this article, but I think this article belongs on wikipedia. If history is any guide, this AfD will end up "keep" by no consensus, and then this same group of editors, angry at the failed AfD, will continue to vandalize the page, deleting large well referenced sections they disagree with. See you all at the next Afd. Trav (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Has seen massive improvements, sources prove importance. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles: [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. I'd also suggest we delete Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka for the same reasons. Wikipedia is not the place to publish allegations, regardless of how well sourced. It is totally, utterly, unencyclopedic to do so. Creating articles based upon "allegations" of this or that will nearly always be a WP:COAT or POV issue. BWH76 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a notable social discourse (see comment below). How should this social discourse be represented in an NPOV manner here on wikipedia? One thing is certain, one can't pretend to legitimately represent it without having first done sufficient legwork to understand the themes discussed in the literature.BernardL (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Although practically all editors attempting to delete the article have yet to evidence significant knowledge of the relevant literature, it nevertheless exists and does testify to the fact that this is a notable social discourse. Wikipedia looks very bad if it systematically tries to suppress such a discourse. There was recently a heavy-handed mass deletion of material, amongst which was considerable material from numerous reliable sources who uncontroversially describe in the course of their analysis significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism. Some of these sources are among the leading authorities on particular phenomena associated with the subject. Any article on the subject sincerely trying to educate readers would do well to take into consideration material from these experts. Justifications for the massive nuke job have been extremely feeble, saying that the issue of size necessitated all that abrupt removal. There were indeed viable alternatives to the totalitarian approach reactively adopted by William Connelly. What follows is a partial list of sources used in the article prior to this illegitimate deletion, there remain far more numerous reliable sources who have not made it into the article:
- Richard Falk, Emeritus Prof International Law, Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories
- Mark Selden, Bartle Prof of Sociology and History and Binghamton
- Arno Mayer, Prof of History at Princeton, one of the world’s renowned experts in Holocaust Studies.
- Jorge I. Dominguez, Prof of International Affairs, Harvard
- Greg Grandin, Prof of History, New York University, member of the Guatemalan Truth Commission team.
- J. Patrice McSherry, Professor of Political Science, Long Island University
- Michael Stohl, currently professor of Communications at UCSB, a world renowned terrorism expert who has made a significant impact in the field.
- Stephen Rabe, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Dallas.
- Michael McClintock, researcher and director for Amnesty International, for almost 20 years.
- Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)
- Paul Farmer , Presley Professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard University
- Clara Nieto, Colombian writer and former diplomat in the Colombian mission to the United Nations, and as Latin American regional director for UNESCO.
- Michael Walzer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey
- Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed professor of International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex,
- Raúl Molina-Mejía is Adjunct Associate Professor of History at Long Island University
- Cynthia Arnson director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
- Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
- Cecilia Menjívar, Ph.D. Cowden Distinguished Associate Professor. School of Social and Family Dynamics. Program in Sociology. Arizona State University
- speedy keep See Bigtimepeace's comments for the most insightful analysis of the situation. The article currently exists in two oscillating forms, each over-zealously defended by groups of editors. One group wants accusations against the US aired in utmost detail, the other group wants them minimised or gone. One form the article takes is a laundry list of accusations of US terrorism. That form needs summarising and perhaps some trimming of sources, but it is not "an embaressment to wikipedia". It's just a typical over-verbose wikipedia article with mostly decent content but poor editing. The other form the article takes is a cut-back version that is also not well summarised with some sections that include notable accusations removed. This form needs fleshing out with summarised content from the other form. However, this second form is not an "embaressment to wikipedia" either. Neither of the current forms is terribly biased or POV, it's the editing that's embarressing (especially the never-ending revert war that prevents constructive editing) and most wikipedia readers probably never notice the editing. The article is a battleground in a nationalistic edit war, but the actual content is just average wikipedia stuff. It doesn't need deleting, it needs to have all the reverting stopped somehow so that each section can be discussed in the talk page until consensus is reached. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Also, this article is absolutely not a WP:COATRACK. A coatrack is when the apparent topic of the article is undermined by another topic in the content. The apparent topic of this article is accusations of US terrorism. The "coat" hung over this is what? More accusations of US terrorism. That's pretty inflammatory to some US people. But it's not a lurking theme, it contains exactly what it says on the box.--Ryan Paddy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- ZOMG keep - who cares that this article is a blatant POV push job? Indeed, a lot of people who edit this article and vote here clearly agree with the sentiments described therein, so the NPOV guidelines be damned. After all, as many have said, this is clearly a bad faith nomination (as one person said, "vandalism"), despite the fact it was made by an Englishman, and other non-American (liberal even) long time users are calling for delete. Why should we pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK when it's notable? Thank God for all the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PER, etc. to help state this is a clear keep. Like one user said, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" - if you don't like the fact this is clearly a biased article and violates our core policies (and always has and always will), you can just ignore it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Our core policies are notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Accusations of terrorism between notable nations is a notable phenomenon, verifiable by reliable sources; in no way does it even come remotely close to violating those core policies. Regarding the only other things, COATRACKS are articles that deals with something other than the subject in such a way as to make it appear that the subject is being discussed but the article is in reality about something else; the subject is clearly discussed in its article, and an WP:NPOV issue is a problem that should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Please read the top of the AfD page. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I would encouraged none of you to actually look at the article history or make sure that the POV stays out of the article after your "strong keep - it can be fixed despite the overwhelming precedent" arguments. After all, there's no responsibility for you to make such a claim when it has been made 7 times before to no avail, and then to uphold it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- You probably want to have a look at the RfC process or perhaps the third opinion pages. Those are how problems with POV are dealt with when they can't be resolved by the regular editors of that page. Celarnor Talk to me 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- PPS. I wonder if all of us claiming that "State terrorism by [insert country name here]" articles would not be inherently biased would be so forgiving about an article titled Accusations that liberal appeasement leads to terrorism? After all, I truly doubt this should be a redlink, given the precedents we've all set here... The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support that article. I wouldn't agree with its contents, but I think that's a fairly notable cultural phenomenon as well. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- oh please do you have even one comment or insight that comes close to a valid reason for deletionTheRedPenOfDoom (talk)? 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The NPOV guidelines clearly state that facts about opinions are valid content. That's what this article consists of, facts about political opinions - many of which are from notable scholars, as listed by BernardL. The article does not state or imply that these opinions are correct - that would be a "POV push job", this is not. The warning tags are correct in the sense that the neutrality is disputed by some editors. But those editors are incorrect, the article is largely neutral and I imagine it is the overall idea of discussing US terrorism that they find objectionable. That's why deleting this article would be a clear case of censorship. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The subject matter is arguably notable, but in terms of content this still is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I doubt deleting it and starting over would achieve anything useful; it's just going to have to be gradually fixed, as I know many people have been trying to do for some time. I'm not optimistic about this article, but I suppose even a bad article on the subject is better than none. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep, bad faith nomination as part of a WP:POINT crusade against controversy/allegation articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Refactor into a list, based on the ToC. Unless a delete is salted, this will come back. As such, it will never be better than a coatrack for all sorts of polemics, so if individual allegations/incidents (or sets thereof) can stand as articles by themselves, this page can be the collector. Who knows, it might then become a category. But an article is ridiculous, because the subject is limitless. rudra (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to recreation as a fully-protected stub for expansion, where all edits are discussed before addition. This article (with its long, divisive history) is one of the worst flashpoints on Wikipedia. While I am ambivalent about the possibility of creating a policy-compliant article on the topic, I am quite sure that in its current form, this isn't it. What we currently have is nothing more than a laundry list of grievances from many sources, some of which totally lack any form of reliability (my personal favorite is the Indymedia San Francisco article supporting the reference to some non-notable group in "The Hague, Belgium", in the Philippines section); I also found links to blogs and to personal websites to columnists with no qualifications in the field of international relations/international law. Horologium (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Section break
- Сomment Mr. Roger's acronym for today is Coatrack, pronounced, Coa-track, Coatrack is an essay (not a policy or guideline), which is irrelevent to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States but a lot of "deletionist" seemed to have embraced anyway in the latest failed AfD.Inclusionist (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep I'm surprised this this is still up: it's an obvious speedy keep and a POV, bad faith Afd (either that or they really are ignorant of WP policy). Either way, its noteworthy that none of the arguments to delete hold up. They are either 100% false, as has been shown, or they are not based on policy. It's also relevant to note, as others have pointed out, the same editors who are want to delete it, do so after getting getting rid of the the articles best sources, purging it of its value (to make it look less notable and less referenced?)--all in the name of "fixing the article"--while here they show they don't want to fix it, they want it gone. Seems like they want it both ways. As BernardL, above, points just some of the impeccable sources that were deleted, all making explicit claims supporting the subject matter. I understand nationalism and jingoism but WP is not censored, so this is not a place to allow such emotive feelings to get the better of us. We report factually encyclopedic knowledge that elucidates, educations, and expands our horizons. Those who find this incompatible with their faith system (faith that the US has not engaged in state terrorism repeatedly) should simply not edit here. WP policies and rules are paramount.
This delete attempt like the many others before are raise serious issues: Will WP be censored or be a real place of learning? Instead of arguing with these editor about deleting, we should be instead talking about promoting this article to Featured Status. We were getting close to that before they came in to disrupt it again. We have some of the best sources possible, mostly academic journal from top professors in their field, as BernardL, has shown.
- Let me give some examples of deleted material, on the false claims that they are either not good sources or they are not related to State Terrorism. Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,' writs that, 'Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror...” The region has been one of the focal points of the literature on state terrorism. Sluka states that “at the end of the 1970’s, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of the existence of a new global “epidemic” of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. “sphere of influence,” and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the United States client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 8). Likewise, the contributions of Michael McClintock, former senior researcher at Amnesty International, have been cited as among the pioneering works about state terrorism in Latin America. (McSherry, Patrice J. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 15-17). McClintock is notable for making the connection between state terrorist practice in Guatemala with previous practices by counterinsurgency forces in Vietnam and the Philippines. Various analysts have charged that the U.S. is significantly complicit in terror regimes in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, and Colombia, citing mainstream human rights organizations such as AI material and Human Rights Watch that these scholars analyze as descriptions of politically motivated campaigns of violence and terror by the powerful over the poor. They either assign major complicity if not outright blame directly on US policies. Is this material relevant and topical, is it notable? This is without question that case, despite those who want to see this forever buried along with its many victims.
Whole sections are wiped out. Never mind that we have top sources that say, for example that the US atomic bombings of Japan represent the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th century.[1][2]
If we disagree that is fine, but its not relevant. What is relevant is that we have many top scholars who make this argument. Yet, they deleted entire sections that were very well referenced, balanced, notable, and on topic on the basis that they don't personally agree with what is being said. I do not exaggerate this point. So now they want to delete the article and change the subject because they don't personally agree with it. Again, nice to know, but its not policy. It has no basis on WP editing protocol.
Historian Howard Zinn writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[3] Is this a valid source, topical, relevant, and notable? Sure but its deleted.
Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."[4] Deleted.
Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention.[5] He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."[6] Another impeccable source. But since the POV editors don't personally agree with these professors, they delete them.
Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and author of War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[7] Guess what? Deleted.
Richard A. Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He writes "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."[8]. He also writes:
Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.
— Richard Falk, War and State Terrorism[9]
Deleted.
I could go on, but you get the point. There was balancing material added, of course, it was trimmed down, as requested, and added with consensus. So what happens? They come back and this time delete it because they say its too small. They delete other sections because they say its too big. Any baseless argument will do as long as this information is suppressed, censored. Well, this is not going to happen, not in wikipedia. I think they must have confused this place with Conservopedia. In this place we have standard and respect knowledge. This place is trying to be a real encylopedia that is not afraid to engage in subjects that are uncomfortable, or controversial--we report and document all notable knowledge about the world around us. That is what an encylopedia is all about. At least any good one. That is what is at stake here: Is WP to be, to be a US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade, where criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims? No. I prefer we be a genuine encyclopedia, and this article is in its best tradition. That is why I think it also matters that editors working on it should have an extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject under their belt. The fact that many don't explains a lot about the continued bickering. If they would just do a little more studying on the topic, we'd be a lot better off. In the mean while its clearly a KEEP KEEP KEEP.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- ^
Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at:
Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18.
{{cite journal}}
:|volume=
has extra text (help) - ^
Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2).
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help);|volume=
has extra text (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
ZinnBreakingSilence
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help); Unknown parameter|name=
ignored (help) - ^ "Professor Tony Coady". Retrieved 2008-01-30.
- ^ Coady, Tony (2004). Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. XV. ISBN 0-52285049-9.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Selden, Mark (2002-09-09). "Terrorism Before and After 9-11". Znet. Retrieved 2008-01-30.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
falk
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45